Jollymon32 Posted August 16, 2020 Author Share Posted August 16, 2020 6 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said: Against my better judgement..............this is a game not real life. You can't shoot under a wall that doesn't reach the ground because the rules say you can't. You can reach under the same wall to grab a magazine because they rules don't say you can't, and NROI confirmed it. It doesn't have to make sense to you, me, or anyone. It is just what it is. That is exactly how I understand it as well. These inconsistencies have to either be resolved by a rules update, NROI decree, or match day arbitration. I do believe that NROI will state that grabbing through walls is fine, and until such time that they do we can argue the point till we are blue in the face as I believe that there are excellent arguments for either position. These discussions, I believe, is what provides the catalyst for the continuous positive evolution of the rule book. As these inconsistencies come to light, are discussed ad naseum, nuts cracked (LOL), etc. it drives the process along and it makes the sport better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatJones Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 If a more realistic stage experience is what you desire, there's a whole sport for that....--Pat JonesFirestone COUSPSA #A79592 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVC Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 4 hours ago, Jollymon32 said: These inconsistencies have to either be resolved by a rules update, NROI decree, or match day arbitration. They are not inconsistencies. It's similar to being able to fault lines and walk outside shooting area, just not being allowed to shoot while faulting and getting a procedural if you do. It's not an inconsistency that there are actions that are "not allowed" while they are "possible" at the same time. Rules tell us how violations are treated. Shooting through a mesh wall is the same as shooting through a hard cover. Not impossible, just "not allowed," at least not allowed for score or penalty. Shooting through holes in the mesh wall is also "not allowed" in the same way. Wall is allowed as a support if it's within the shooting area and fingers through the mesh are support. The "solid plane" wording is that wall is treated as a solid plane in the context of shooting through hard cover. This might be addressed by the DNROI simply because it's (clearly) causing issues, but the rule book cannot spell every which way that a wall can be used for support... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ming the Merciless Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 On 8/15/2020 at 10:48 AM, IVC said: It is NOT "unpenetrable for bullets." Clearly bullets can go through it so it's penetrable. It's just that it is a hard cover so bullets that go through don't count for score or penalty. It is similarly NOT "unpenetrable for fingers." Fingers can go through too. The fingers that go through the solid plane of the hard cover won't count for score or penalty downrange. But fingers don't count for score or penalty anyways. So rule 2.2.3.4 is happy with the fingers going through the plane and not counting... 4 hours ago, IVC said: They are not inconsistencies. It's similar to being able to fault lines and walk outside shooting area, just not being allowed to shoot while faulting and getting a procedural if you do. It's not an inconsistency that there are actions that are "not allowed" while they are "possible" at the same time. Rules tell us how violations are treated. Shooting through a mesh wall is the same as shooting through a hard cover. Not impossible, just "not allowed," at least not allowed for score or penalty. Shooting through holes in the mesh wall is also "not allowed" in the same way. Wall is allowed as a support if it's within the shooting area and fingers through the mesh are support. The "solid plane" wording is that wall is treated as a solid plane in the context of shooting through hard cover. This might be addressed by the DNROI simply because it's (clearly) causing issues, but the rule book cannot spell every which way that a wall can be used for support... I've been shooting USPSA for a long time and other than a few stage builder/RO's who have gotten 'gamed' like the OP, I haven't seen this (clearly) causing issues. I doubt that it will be addressed by DNROI because it really doesn't need to be. The majority of shooters understand the concept behind mesh walls as stated by IVC. Three pages of posts and only one person thinks it's a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT_Schultz Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Ming the Merciless said: Three pages of posts and only one person thinks it's a problem. That's what cops call " a clue".......LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT_Schultz Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 11 hours ago, Jollymon32 said: These inconsistencies have to either be resolved by a rules update, NROI decree, or match day arbitration. They are not inconsistencies. As someone already explained to you, they are allowed and disallowed actions. You need to just hit the "I believe" button and let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollymon32 Posted August 17, 2020 Author Share Posted August 17, 2020 You guys are 100% right - I may have been using the wrong term, maybe "inconsistency" is not the right term. What ever the term, I am referring to the "anomaly" in which: A solid plane (2.2.3.4) is solid for some things and not for others - for example, solid so that you can't stick a gun through it to shoot at targets from under a physical wall, but not solid enough to stop a foot, magazines, or in the case of this post, fingers. And these "anomalies" can be addressed by: 1) Rules Update: For example, maybe removing the word "solid" from 2.2.3.4. 2) DNROI Decree: For example refer to the NROI Rules Insight where they decreed that foot faults under the solid plane of a wall are not penalized 3) Match day arbitration: "What do you mean you don't have the form and I have to print one..."<--this in reference to a story I heard Let's not loose track of why this post as created - the "anomaly" created a significant advantage for a group of shooters (one of my teammates on that day reached out to me and told me that I left out of this post that one competitor even gripped his gun through the mesh - i don't recall seeing that, but this "anomaly" lends itself to this type of action). Lastly - based on some of the comments, I have come to realize that fingers through mesh is more of an L1 "anomaly" and that therefore not very important in the grand scheme of USPSA things. I apologize for having wasted you all's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) It's not that you "can't" stick your gun under a wall and shoot at a target, just that the rules say those bullets don't count as hits. There is no rule saying your mag that rolled under the wall is out of play. Edited August 17, 2020 by waktasz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollymon32 Posted August 17, 2020 Author Share Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, waktasz said: It's not that you "can't" stick your gun under a wall and shoot at a target, just that the rules say those bullets don't count as hits. There is no rule saying your mag that rolled under the wall is out of play. CRAP - another "anomaly"!!! 2.2.3.4 "Shots cannot be fired though the barrier except at designated shooting ports or other designated openings. Any hits that result from full diameter shots fired through a barrier except through a designated port or opening will not count for score...." Appendix A3 Shot: A bullet which passes completely through the barrel of a firearm. If you stick your gun completely through the "solid plane" and fire, then the the "shot" was not fired through the barrier, it was on the other side of the barrier. AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Edited August 17, 2020 by Jollymon32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT_Schultz Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 Nobody likes a range lawyer in his squad. Least of which, the RO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJH Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 1 hour ago, SGT_Schultz said: Nobody likes a range lawyer in his squad. Least of which, the RO. Unless they're about to get screwed out of some points by an unknowing Ro. Then they love a range lawyer LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVC Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 4 hours ago, Jollymon32 said: If you stick your gun completely through the "solid plane" and fire, then the the "shot" was not fired through the barrier, it was on the other side of the barrier. If you stick your gun through the wall you're not using a designated opening and that's not allowed. I really believe you're passionate about this issue and the discussion is in good faith, even if there is a large disagreement. Hashing this out is still important, not only to convince you, but for other RO-s to see what can happen. With that said, the "solid plane" wording is quite appropriate. It doesn't say that the mesh is always treated as a solid plane, it says in THIS SINGLE RULE the mesh is treated as a solid plane and the rule is about SCORING HITS, not using walls for SUPPORT (I'm not yelling, just emphasizing). You cannot extrapolate language from one rule to the next. If you could, it would be in the glossary such as "Solid plane: an inpenetrable interpolation of the mesh wall into empty spaces between mesh strands where if you stick your fingers through they will get chopped off by those who use the word 'gamer' when they lose a match to a better shooter." There would also have to be additional rules using this new "solid plane" glossary term. It's almost as if I claimed that those mesh walls cannot be loaded on the truck/trailer by using mesh to lift them because some rule about scoring says it's a solid plane. Loading the truck, scoring hits.... completely different concepts and not connected. The same goes for using walls for support. It's more like loading the wall onto the truck, where you make physical contact with the wall and use it for support, than it is about anything scoring related. Again, completely different concepts - scoring vs. support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollymon32 Posted August 17, 2020 Author Share Posted August 17, 2020 3 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said: Nobody likes a range lawyer in his squad. Least of which, the RO. Unless of course the RO/CRO can go tit for tat with the range lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT_Schultz Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Jollymon32 said: Unless of course the RO/CRO can go tit for tat with the range lawyer. Which is not hard to do and win, but it's still an annoyance that brands him as "that guy" Don't be "that guy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadside72 Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 Why doesn't someone else contact DNROI and ask? I've already done it once and I gave the response I got. I just wish I could find the emails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadarTech Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 37 minutes ago, broadside72 said: Why doesn't someone else contact DNROI and ask? I've already done it once and I gave the response I got. I just wish I could find the emails. I did ... and I already told Jollymon32 the answer... Troy says if the wall is in— this is legal.. and that if you leave the wall in and this happens it’s bad stage design... matter of fact at A8 with the stages being putting up TODAY— me and the other RM discussed this on the phone about an hour ago.. and making sure we add fault lines so this won’t be an issue... but I’m just an RM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadside72 Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 I did ... and I already told Jollymon32 the answer... Troy says if the wall is in— this is legal.. and that if you leave the wall in and this happens it’s bad stage design... matter of fact at A8 with the stages being putting up TODAY— me and the other RM discussed this on the phone about an hour ago.. and making sure we add fault lines so this won’t be an issue... but I’m just an RM... So what about this scenario...Hands (or fingers) touching marks on wall is the start position. If I wanted to start on the opposite side of the wall and put my fingers through the mesh to touch said marks, is that ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollymon32 Posted August 17, 2020 Author Share Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, RadarTech said: I did ... and I already told Jollymon32 the answer... Troy says if the wall is in— this is legal.. and that if you leave the wall in and this happens it’s bad stage design... matter of fact at A8 with the stages being putting up TODAY— me and the other RM discussed this on the phone about an hour ago.. and making sure we add fault lines so this won’t be an issue... but I’m just an RM... For the record, you sent a copy via text of something DNROI answered you or answered in the RM forum. Nowhere in the text did it state to disseminate that information as his final decision; indeed, the text seemed like he was mulling it over - unless DNROI uses "seems to be" as a definitive. We also have allegations that someone has asked this question beforehand and gotten an opposite answer from DNROI. DNROI has not and may not answer the query I sent him directly. I am not going to surmise his answer from something that may be off the record. It may be that the question does not deem itself to be answered. Based on some of the responses thus far, it does seem like that is the case. Edited August 17, 2020 by Jollymon32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadarTech Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 So what about this scenario...Hands (or fingers) touching marks on wall is the start position. If I wanted to start on the opposite side of the wall and put my fingers through the mesh to touch said marks, is that ok?If someone did that— the WSB was poorly written..If I saw it I would issue a reshoot under 8.2.2 and then fix the WSB under 3.2.3.If they declined the reshoot issue a ZERO score under 2.3.3.3They could ARB it if they liked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadside72 Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 1 hour ago, RadarTech said: If someone did that— the WSB was poorly written.. If I saw it I would issue a reshoot under 8.2.2 and then fix the WSB under 3.2.3. If they declined the reshoot issue a ZERO score under 2.3.3.3 They could ARB it if they liked... Because i'm that guy some days, I might take that to arbitration as you rewriting the WSB in this case is not for "clarity, consistency or safety". "Hands touching marks" is not unclear, inconsistent or unsafe. Sure it could be more concise thus limiting that condition from happening, but it's not a condition that meets the requires for 3.2.3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadarTech Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 Because i'm that guy some days, I might take that to arbitration as you rewriting the WSB in this case is not for "clarity, consistency or safety". "Hands touching marks" is not unclear, inconsistent or unsafe. Sure it could be more concise thus limiting that condition from happening, but it's not a condition that meets the requires for 3.2.3. If you consider that hands touching with feet on a Particular side of a wall— yea it is unclear. And feet are no mentioned.. But in the end-it is a start position that is poorly defined. And I didn’t point to hands... just a WSB that didn’t clearly define a full start position.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MemphisMechanic Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 (edited) On 8/16/2020 at 8:04 AM, PatJones said: If a more realistic stage experience is what you desire, there's a whole sport for that... It’s strange how often you wind up fighting with nine assailants in stages with max roundcount of 18 shots. Maximum realism. Edited August 18, 2020 by MemphisMechanic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVC Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 3 hours ago, RadarTech said: But in the end-it is a start position that is poorly defined. Why? Anything that is not specified is free style - pick your poison. Besides, if someone starts outside the shooting area and has to run around to get to the first position, it’s comedy gold. Record it and threaten to post it here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 Don't get started on target sticks. They don't even exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadside72 Posted August 27, 2020 Share Posted August 27, 2020 Read the last paragraph at https://nroi.org/miscellaneous/we-need-a-ruleing/ Covers the dropped item that goes to the other side of our imaginary walls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now